New York, NY (July 27, 2006) — â€“ Time’s Up!, the non-profit, all-volunteer, environmental group that is being sued by New York City for advertising the Critical Mass bike ride, denounced the new parade permit regulations proposed by the NYPD. The rule change, which requires permission from the NYPD whenever 20 or more law-abiding cyclists ride together, is a retaliatory response by the NYPD to the decision of two judges in two separate cases. The judges refused to halt the ride, stating that Critical Mass is not a parade and does not require a permit.

Despite paying lip service to public safety as a reason for the rule change, the NYPD continues to create unsafe conditions for Critical Mass cyclists. Police officers have been documented cutting off, “dooring,” and pushing down law-abiding cyclists, merely to give tickets for moving violations. On the May Critical Mass ride, a cyclist was rushed to the hospital with a broken collarbone after she was doored by a police officer while riding in the bike lane.

Cyclists encourage the NYPD to discontinue its show of force and harassment through these overbroad and unenforceable new rules and hope instead to see a new atmosphere of cooperation on the part of the NYPD.

###

TIME’S UP! is a non-profit environmental group that has been using educational outreach and direct action for the last 15 years to promote a more sustainable, less toxic city.

In a move that caught political activists and cycling groups by surprise, the Police Department last week announced a proposed “clarification” of rules governing a host of events, from public gatherings to political protests to the monthly Critical Mass bike rides.

The proposal, which the public can comment on at an Aug. 23 hearing at Police Headquarters, immediately drew criticism from the legal, political and activist communities.

The proposal would require a permit for groups of 35 or more that gather for walks or demonstrations. In addition, groups of 20 or more cyclists riding together would also be required to get a permit. Any group of two or more that gathers for a protest or march that could disrupt traffic would need a parade permit.

Civil libertarians and politicians were quick to criticize the proposal.

“You need a permit because we have to give you permission to break the law,” said civil rights attorney Norman Siegel at a press conference, mocking the mentality of the new permit initiative. Siegel was joined by City Councilmember Alan Gerson and other activists last Thursday at the E. Houston St. headquarters of Time’s Up, the 20-year-old East Village environmental advocacy group.

“Very simply, this is a big deal,” Siegel warned. The proposal, he said, would hinder First Amendment expressive activity. “These proposals radically change the rules for protest. The result will be less dissent, less protesting, less criticism.”

“Small groups of New Yorkers, as small as two people,” Siegel noted, “riding their bikes together, would now be required to get a permit.” This, Siegel noted, means a family out for a bike ride would be considered lawbreakers and subject to arrest.

Siegel and others believe the proposal is a direct outgrowth of recent rulings in state and federal courts favorable to the monthly Critical Mass bike rides. Those rulings rejected the city’s argument that the Critical Mass rides need a permit. Siegel also questioned the Police Department’s authority to promulgate such rules. Referring to State Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman’s February ruling, which denied the city’s claim that the rides need a permit, Siegel pointed to the word “statutes” in the ruling.

“What the judge was suggesting,” Siegel contended, “was that the city of New York change the law. The word ‘statue’ means the law. It doesn’t mean a rule or a regulation.”

Councilmember Gerson was no less incensed.

“The right to protest is what characterizes our country as a free society. The right to freely protest goes to the very core of our individual and collective liberty,” he said. Gerson agreed that any permit proposal should only result from legislative action and public hearings at the City Council, not at 1 Police Plaza.

“It is wrong…for any agency of the executive branch to attempt to change regulations regarding protests,” he said.

Gerson said he would insist the Council fulfill its prerogative to review the proposal.

“Permit requirements for assembly and gatherings should be the exception and not the rule. Let us remember that part of the right to protest is the right to spontaneously protest,” he declared.

Several speakers cautioned that gatherings as disparate as class trips, funeral processions and even picnics would be subject to regulation under the proposal.

“We don’t believe you should have to pay to use public space. Public space should be for the people; the poorest people or the richest people,” he said.

DiPaola is one of four defendants being sued by the city for gathering a group of more than 20 for Critical Mass rides without a permit. In 2004, U.S. District Court Judge William Pauley denied the city’s request for an injunction against the rides. Last February, Justice Stallman also ruled against the city. An appeal is pending.

DiPaola and cycling advocate Charles Komanoff both said the number of people riding bikes in the city has been increasing, which means safety in numbers. Komanoff considers the city’s latest proposal “lethal.”

“By discouraging and even criminalizing cycling, the proposed N.Y.P.D. policy will kill cyclists as surely as speeding S.U.V.’s and tow trucks kill cyclists,” he said. Komanoff displayed a chart showing that more cyclists on city streets resulted in a lower number being hit by cars.

June, in particular, was a deadly month for cyclists. Three were killed in accidents, including a physician hit by a city tow truck while riding along the Hudson River bike path and a Brooklyn filmmaker who was killed on E. Houston St. after slipping on a street construction plate and falling under a moving truck.

Many at the press conference called for a protest bike ride to the Aug. 23 hearing at 6 p.m. and encouraged a large turnout of speakers.

Law enforcement is being stepped up towards cyclists as we approach critical mass tomorrow. Today I observed a bike cop at the Manhattan base of the Williamsburg Bridge around 5:00pm. I’ve been riding this bridge for 10 years, back when there were decaying metal grates barely holding the bike path together. You couldn’t dream of getting a cop to be stationed anywhere around to help with a mugger. I haven’t seen cops around since the last couple years and never when people are knocked off their bikes and robbed. Now, suddenly there are cops around, and what are they doing? Stopping cyclists and telling them their speed is being monitored or checking for bike lights or better yet, lying to them that they need a helmet.

A loyal bike blog reader ran into a scooter cop on the Manhattan bridge and stopped to chat with him. He said he was from the 84th precinct in Brooklyn and that there was going to be a detail of cops on all the bridges from now on. After talking with him for a while, in a cordial manner, it was discovered that this new assignment was basically for cyclists. The police officer also mentioned that cops from the 84th were being brought in for critical mass…so expect a large build up.

here is the DOT link to the laws on helmets and requirements for equipment for bike riding.

So now the cops are stopping people on the Brooklyn Bridge…This is starting to become a tad facsist.

This report comes from Jacob:

“Well it is starting to happen. I have been riding across the Brooklyn Bridge several times a week for a long time and this is the first time I have been stopped by a Police Officer to have a “Bike Inspection”. Police officers were stationed at both ends of the Brooklyn Bridge this morning (I was riding over at 9:10am) and stopping cyclist to check for Helmets, Front light, tail light and bell. Although I, nor any of the other cyclists I was stopped with, received a ticket we all received verbal warnings. Although I normally wear a helmet today I left the house without one. To the best of my knowledge NYC does not, by law, require a helmet unless you are under 14. The police officer told me I was wrong and that everyone requires a helmet.

Is there any truth to this? One of the cyclist I was stopped with worked on the City council and she said that the police officer was incorrect. Any ideas?”

The truth is…The law is anyone under the age of 14 must have a helmet. Please inform the NYPD they are wrong and ask them why they are harassing bikes. Tell them you know this is a coordinated attack and it needs to stop right now.

I really feel this is a war now. Please write into Bike Blog and share your observations of police harassment towards bicyclists. Also feel free to share past experiences. The heat is difinitely being turned up.

Get informed. While bombs drop on civilians in both Israel and Lebanon and bombs continue to explode in Iraq, the NYPD think it is a priority to strip away our right of free assemble and then have the nerve to tell us that isn’t what they are trying to do.

Transportation Alternatives has released good information including the Police rules submitted to the public record…They are just mad that the press found out about their sneaky moves.

So the police announced they no longer want to mess around with this legal bike riding nonsense so they came up with some laws on their own and are going to allow the people to listen to the rules defined at a public hearing on August 23rd. at Police Headquarters and make sure to video tape and barcode all those in attendance to root out who the “trouble makers are.” No need for city council involvement, too messy. When the NYPD gets annoyed with silly things like the constitution and a federal and state judge’s ruling…its time to make up your own rules. Here is what they have announced.

1. Require parade permits for bicyclists traveling in groups of 20 or more.2. Any cyclists or walkers who take to the streets in groups of 2 or more and disobey traffic laws need a permit.3. Require a permit for 35 or more people who restrict themselves to the sidewalk. (just in case you try and get out of the street and hang out on the sidewalk. So if you can’t be in the street and you can’t be on the sidewalk?)and4. anyone who even thinks about parading in the street needs a permit….ok I made number 4 up…but it will probably be next if the secret police get their way. B is for Bicycles.

Have you ever tried to get a permit for something political in this town? Its like asking president Bush to complete a long difficult sentence…impossible.

Basically this stems from the NYPD being told by a judge that Critical Mass does not need a permit and so the police had to back off and not arrest people on this bike ride that happens the last Friday of every month. Instead they have been increasing the domestic spying, writing all kinds of weird tickets on the ride and dooring people, harassing cyclists not only on critical mass but everyday, telling people their speed is being monitored on the Williamsburg bridge, ticketing cyclists in the public parks and on and on. If you still think these are isolated incidents…THINK AGAIN.

The NYtimes came out with an article on Wednesday alerting people of what was going on.

The next day Time’s Up held an emergency press conference in their space and had civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel explain how unconstitional all of this is. Some press where there like NY1 and Clyde Haberman of the NY Times who wrote thsi article:

Published: July 21, 2006

ONE of New Yorkâ€™s greater glories is its talent for finding molehills and turning them into mountains. It led this week to a proposed set of police regulations with civil liberties implications.

In case you were distracted by little things like the Middle East crisis and the stem-cell debate, the Police Department announced new rules controlling marches and parades, be they on foot or on wheels. The rules wonâ€™t becomefinal until after a public hearing scheduled for Aug. 23 (when many New Yorkers are certain to be away). But it sounds as if minds at police headquarters are made up.

Hereâ€™s the new drill:

Bicyclists traveling in groups of 20 or more must first get a parade permit from the police. The same goes forgroups of 35 or more people walking together on sidewalks. For that matter, a group of merely two peopleâ€” thatâ€™ s right, two people â€” will be defined as a parade if they walk or cycle â€œin a manner that does notcomply with all applicable traffic laws, rules and regulations.â€

Be honest. Have you never, while strolling or biking with a companion, crossed the street against a red light?It would seem that the two of you will now, technically speaking, qualify as a parade. And since you probablywill not have first asked the police for a parade permit, it appears that you will â€” again technically â€” be breakingtwo laws.

What happened here is that a molehill became a mountain.

A group bicycle ride known as Critical Mass is held in Manhattan on the last Friday of every month. This event, encouraged by an environmental group called Timeâ€™s Up, went on for years with no one paying much attention.Then the Republicans came to town in 2004. The bike ride on the eve of their convention was huge. Things got unruly, and 264 people were arrested.

After that, the atmosphere between the police and Timeâ€™s Up became poisonous, with each side accusing the other of bad faith. The police harass them and provoke clashes, the riders say. The riders block traffic and look for trouble, the police say. Each side probably has a point.

Five months ago, a State Supreme Court justice, Michael D. Stallman, rejected the Police Departmentâ€™s attempts to rein in Critical Mass with rules that he called ill-defined. Almost plaintively, Justice Stallman urged both sides to exercise â€œpatience, mutual respect and restraint,â€ and in effect return that mountain to a molehill.

Now we have the new regulations â€” tailored, the police say, to the judgeâ€™s complaint about vagueness. They do not, however, bring the molehill back.

Civil libertarians call the revisions a frontal assault on free speech. â€œOverkill,â€ the civil liberties lawyer Norman Siegel said yesterday. Protesters, Mr. Siegel said, â€œwill now need government permission to exercise their First Amendment rights.â€ Similar objections came from the New York Civil Liberties Union.

Questions are unavoidable.

What if 35 people, outraged by events in the Middle East, decide suddenly to march on the sidewalk to the United Nations? This is hardly an unimaginable event. The new regulations, strictly read, say they must first get a parade permit.

â€œLet us remember that part of the right to protest is the right to spontaneously protest,â€ said City Councilman Alan Jay Gerson of Manhattan. Besides, Mr. Gerson said, it should be up to the Council, not the police, to change rules governing free speech. Indeed, the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said in a statement yesterday that â€œthese proposalsraise significant questions that we are examining carefully.â€

PRACTICAL considerations also come to mind. Will 20 people on a routine bike tour have to get a parade permit? How about 35 kids walking as a group on a class trip? Or a funeral procession?

Paul J. Browne, a Police Department spokesman, dismissed all this as â€œgrasping at unrealistic scenarios.â€ Still, some will wonder if the rules are to be uniformly enforced or applied mainly to groups deemed nettlesome, like Timeâ€™s Up. The question is part of a broader issue that New Yorkers have faced since 9/11: How do we balance the demands of security and order with our tradition of openness and free expression?

One whimsical answer was offered yesterday by Steve Stollman, a biking advocate who wore a button designed for anyone planning to walk or ride in a group. The button had an arrow pointing in opposite directions. â€œPlease donâ€™t arrest me,â€ it said. â€œIâ€™m not with him.â€-=–of the ny Times who wrote this article:———————————————————————-NY1 wrote this story after the press conference–

The NYPD is pushing for new rules on permits for protests and parades in response to recent court rulings that found the current rules too vague. NY1’s Molly Kroon filed the following report.

During the 2004 Republican National Convention, police arrested some 230 protestors demonstrating on the sidewalk on Fulton Street. Those arrests were thrown out by the DA’s office, but new regulations proposed by the NYPD would require permits for all similar protests of 35 people or more. It’s got free speech advocates seething.

“These proposed regulations are a transparent effort to severely limit political protest,” said Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberty Union.

The proposed restrictions wouldn’t just apply to protesters, but to cyclists too. The NYPD wants to require a parade permit for bicyclists of 20 or more and for those who go riding with at least one other cyclist and disobey traffic laws.

“In times of us encouraging people to ride their bicycles together, the city is saying the exact opposite thing,” said cycling advocate Bill DiPaola of Time’s Up! Advocacy Group.

Some see the move as a direct attack on Critical Mass, the group bicycle ride held every month. Members of the group have accused the NYPD of seizing their bikes and obstructing their route. The two are currently locked in a court battle.

“They show the city isn’t this a beautiful, positive celebration, not a demonstration, but a celebration of what our streets could look like, and it is going to affect group rides all over the city,” said DiPaola.

But the NYPD says the new regulations are in response to a recent court decision that found the city’s rules too vague, and they say that the department simply wanted to clarify them. In a statement, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said, “the police always had the authority to make arrests, and continue to have that authority.”

Critics disagree.

“When there is a need to get a permit from the police, then the police invariably try to micro-manage the demonstration and that’s not good for free speech,” said Lieberman.

The NYCLU says it plans to call on the city council to step in if the NYPD moves forward with the new rules. New Yorkers will get an opportunity to comment on the regulations at a public forum being held at police headquarters later next month.

By DAVID SEIFMANTARGET: STREET PEDALERS: Proposed NYPD rules on what constitutes a “regulated” procession: two or more pedestrians, vehicles, bicycles or other “devices” that don’t comply with traffic laws.

July 19, 2006 — EXCLUSIVERebuffed in court from blocking massive bicycle gatherings at Union Square Park, the Police Department is moving to amend its rules so cops can arrest cyclists in groups as small as two if they violate traffic laws, The Post has learned.

The proposed rules – which would crack down on Critical Mass, a bike group whose members swarm through city streets – would also give the NYPD the power to haul in 20 or more cyclists even if they obey traffic regulations but don’t have a permit.

Also targeted would be groups of 35 or more pedestrians “proceeding together along a sidewalk” without pre-approval.

“Each of these types of activity has the likelihood to significantly disrupt vehicular and pedestrian traffic and adversely affect public health and safety, unless subject to regulatory control via the permitting process,” the Police Department said in a statement.

Peter Vallone Jr., chairman of the City Council’s Public Safety Committee, agreed, saying that strict enforcement of activities that might block emergency vehicles is prudent in the aftermath of 9/11.

“Anything that impedes emergency vehicles has to be regulated in this day and age, and that’s exactly what the PD is doing here,” said Vallone, a longtime champion of the NYPD.

During the Critical Mass rides, hundreds of cyclists pedal en masse through city streets, often disregarding traffic signals and blocking traffic.

Civil-rights lawyer Norman Siegel charged that the revised regulations are so sweeping, they would make it tough to stage any spontaneous demonstration or get-together.

“It radically changes expressive activity and the right to protest in the City of New York,” he said.

Siegel was one of the lawyers who beat back repeated attempts by the NYPD to reign in hundreds of bicyclists who’ve been gathering the last Friday of the month at Union Square Park for Critical Mass rides.

The new rules were published in the City Record on Monday and a public hearing on them is scheduled for Aug. 23 at Police Headquarters.

In February, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman rejected efforts by the city to block the Critical Mass rides and to punish Time’s Up, an environmental group, for publicizing them.

The judge noted that the city’s regulations don’t make clear what constitutes a “parade or procession,” and suggested it would “be sensible” to specify how large a group has to be to fall into that category.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said the revised rules would allow paradegoers who obtain permits to engage in activities “that would otherwise be illegal, such as disregarding traffic signals . . . with the police making accommodations, such as the rerouting of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.”

Disputing Siegel, Browne said cops “always had the authority to make arrests, and continue to have that authority.”

The Critical Mass rides have taken place here for more than a decade. Until the summer of 2004 – when the Republican National Convention came to town – there was little interaction with cops.

July 20, 2006 — GREAT! The cops have finally gotten the go- ahead to bust the political pedal pushers who under the radar call themselves Critical Mass and arrogantly claim they own our roads.

But the cops aren’t going far enough.

There is an unspoken civil war brewing in Manhattan between the kamikaze bike bullies and pedestrians who sadly bow to this cult that ignores every traffic rule in the book – and to our peril.

Vincent Sapone, managing director of the League of Mutual Taxi Owners, who got his taxi medallion in 1967, is on my side in the civil war. “I have a good friend of mine who was hit by one of these crazy nuts and he was off work for nine months. He still walks with a cane and really has never been the same since,” Sapone was saying. “Sue for damages? Who would he sue? The guy disappeared.”

How many times, right outside my office, has a taxi delivered me between 47th and 48th streets on Sixth Avenue about three feet from parked cars on the curbside?

And how many times has some mobile moron on a bike, as I opened the door after paying the fare, crashed into that door trying to illegally squeeze through?

It happens and the rider protests in profanity and yells, “Man, you could have killed me. “Pity I failed.

“You were lucky they didn’t sue you or the taxi driver. It happens you know,” said Sapone.

“This city is very fast to give summonses to yellow cabs because they know they’ll get paid. These bicycle guys who never see a red light or a pedestrian crossing, they don’t get summonses because the city knows they won’t get paid.

“Now how about these pedicabs that are everywhere? “They’re just as bad, take up big space, hold up traffic, ignore therules and what about that thing called the octopus? You get a bunch of partygoers, or tourists, many who have had a good time all pedaling this big thing taking up a lot of road. Where is the licensing, whereare their helmets? It’s crazy.”

Sapone points out that all yellow-cab owners are fingerprinted and drug-tested for their medallions: “Frankly, anyone over 16 flying around the city at least should be licensed so they can be accountable.”

There is more than one bike in my garage. They’re for biking down the boardwalk on a gorgeous fresh gift of a day. Merry machines for the rider, not damn maiming machines ridden by pedal punks.

steve.dunleavy@nypost.com——————–

Good to see the Fox owned media advocates killing people with their car doors…The cyclists run into the car doors??? Right like the police batons were broken by protestors running into them.

Oh and riding your bike to work is a civil war with the taxis…right? Taxi’s never break the law, cutting over three lanes to pick up a fair. HA HA HA…Once again the post is a mouth piece to spread propaganda to convince people that bike riders are dangerous and the police should do everything they can to stop them. Right. Lets see what happens when a family of four is run into by a bicycle…a scratch, a cut, maybe a broken bone…now lets see when a family of four is run into by an SUV…DEAD!

As the NYPD tries their best to squeeze the fist on protests…meanwhile the city has been settling a few court cases from the RNC 2004, when all this madness got started…

The city has been quietly settling cases with several dozen people arrested during the 2004 Republican National Convention.

The plaintiffs, a mix of protesters and passers-by, are each being offered between $2,500 and $7,500, four lawyers who represent separate groups of plaintiffs said yesterday.

Several dozen people have accepted the offer, although the vast majority of the more than 400 represented in the lawsuits have turned down the offers, the lawyers said. Under the terms of the settlement, the city does not admit any wrongdoing.

A spokeswoman for the city’s law department declined to answer any questions about a settlement, saying the matter involves pending litigation. A spokeswoman for the city comptroller’s office, Laura Rivera, said a tally of plaintiffs who have accepted any settlement and the amount of money disbursed would not be available until today.

About 1,800 protesters and passersby were arrested during the Republican National Convention, according to news reports. Those arrested were brought to Pier 57, a former bus depot on the west side of Manhattan, where they were held in a makeshift detention center, in some cases for more than two days. Many were charged with disorderly conduct or for not having a permit for a rally. Charges were dropped or dismissed in the vast majority of the cases. Their lawyers allege that the arrests were unlawful and the conditions of the detainment were unsafe.

The settlement offer is the first indication that the city is willing to pay several million dollars to rid itself of these lawsuits. So far, the city has taken a strong line against the suits. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has commended his department’s conduct during the convention, during which it balanced the tasks of defending against a potential terrorist attack and policing massive protests.

Because the plaintiffs are represented in dozens of different lawsuits, it is not immediately clear how many plaintiffs have chosen to accept the terms of the settlement.

One attorney, Norman Best, who represents more than 250 plaintiffs, said about 10% of his clients had accepted the city’s offer. He said the city first contacted him with the terms of the settlement March 20.

Several lawyers interviewed say the city did not disclose the formula it used to decide how much money it offered each plaintiff. But in the majority of cases, the city offered $2,501 to those incarcerated for less than 24 hours, $5,001 to those locked up for as many as 48 hours, and $7,501 for those held longer, Mr. Best said.

The terms of the offer provide that the city would pay additional legal fees, ranging between $2,000 and $4,000 for each plaintiff, Mr. Best said. Another attorney involved in the litigation, Martin Stolar, said the dollar figure would be determined after each lawyer submitted a fee application, based on his usual hourly rates.

Some lawyers have called the settlement offer a low-ball figure. But Jonathan Moore, who represents more than 20 plaintiffs, said the monetary sums were “not unreasonable offers from the city.”

Mr. Best said that many of his clients refused to take the settlement because they are eager to go to trial. The lawsuits are currently before Judge Kenneth Karas of U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

“Most of the people feel quite strongly about having their day in court and holding the city responsible,” Mr. Best said, adding that those most inclined to take the settlement reside in states other than New York.

Some attorneys say the city’s overall response to the lawsuits has been frustrating. “The city has decided it will engage in a war of attrition against civil rights plaintiffs and lawyers because … they want to punish people for having brought the cases and they want to prevent the lawyers for them from recovering a reasonable fee,” Mr. Moore said. He said he bases that assessment on the never-ending depositions city lawyers have taken from some of his clients.

At least two of those depositions have stretched to near the 12-hour mark, he said, and involved questions ranging from their political beliefs to whether they have ever been in therapy.Mr. Moore said the depositions were aimed at intimidating the plaintiffs from pressing on with their claims.

In 2005, the city agreed to pay more than $230,000 following a state judge’s preliminary contempt finding against the city relating to its detention of many of the protesters for longer than the standard 24 hour———————————————————————————-

Police commisiner had this to say in the post…hmmm the police coRay kelly had this to say:

July 21, 2006 — ONCE again, the usual critics are charging the NYPD with undermining free speech – and, once again, the facts say otherwise.

The charges center on the department’s recent clarification of its rules on protests, marches and parades – clarifications suggested by Supreme Court Justice Michael D. Stallman.

The NYPD had sought a restraining order to prevent reckless mass bike-rides that jeopardize public safety. The judge told us that the department’s rules were vague and recommended that we be more specific in defining what constituted a parade or a march. “For many reasons,” wrote Justice Stallman, “it would be sensible . . . to develop and promulgate criteria for what constitutes a parade or procession, as a function of its size.”

So we did. Where the rules didn’t specify numbers, the amended version now stipulates that groups of 35 or more would require a permit for a march along a sidewalk. Groups of 20 or more using bicycles, or other vehicles, would require a permit. Smaller groups obeying traffic regulations would not.

None of the clarifications in any way impinge on free speech or the message behind a march, parade, or protest. They impose no new penalties or punishments, and are in complete conformity with the conceptual framework of existing law. In short, the NYPD is simply providing the clarity to its regulations that the courts indicated was lacking.

The “bicycle protests” that triggered all this had become a real public-safety problem. In years past, these consisted of cyclists who stopped for lights and otherwise observed traffic regulations, riding in groups in Manhattan to advocate alternatives to cars or for the sheer fun of it. In many instances, organizers would advise the police in advance of the routes they planned to take. But, beginning a few months before the 2004 Republican National Convention, the rides were hijacked by those apparently intent on commandeering the streets for themselves.

Participants took it upon themselves to block crosstown streets so they could run lights and have the avenues for bikes alone. They posed grave risks, not only to the sick and injured waiting for an ambulance to arrive, but to others. A news helicopter captured the image of one of the cyclist “corkers” punching a motorist who had sought to breach an ersatz blockade.

The Police Department’s permit process effectively allows activities that would otherwise be illegal – such as disregarding traffic signals or blocking vehicular or pedestrian traffic – to go forward, with the police making accommodations such as rerouting traffic. The NYPD’s standing offer to work with groups to accommodate these rides has been refused.

Every day, the department performs the great juggling act of accommodating street fairs, protests, parades and performances of one sort or another – while also safeguarding the participants and the public, and without letting the rest of the city grind to a halt.

That means that, when a demonstration fills blocks of the East Side of Manhattan, we make sure the radioactive isotopes or human organs that medical centers in the vicinity need still arrive on time. It also means we provide emergency lanes for ambulances or fire trucks that might otherwise be delayed in the added congestion that such events inevitably cause. (Similarly, the police accommodate sidewalk pickets while allowing everyone else to get to their apartment buildings, hotels, or places or work.)

This give-and-take proceeds daily without incident in the vast majority of cases. Last year, the NYPD assigned special police details to accommodate over a thousand of such events below 59th Street alone.

By responding to the courts’ concerns about specificity, the department clarified the rules on parade permits without undermining, in any way, the public’s right to voice dissent or any other opinion.

Ray Kelly is New York City Police commissioner——————————-

What Ray Kelly is misinformed about:

1) The only reason the NYPD wants more strict rulings on protest is they haven’t been able to stop Critical Mass. They’ve been told by a federal and state judge that it is not illegal to ride your bike in a group. Breaking traffic laws is illegal and punishable by summons…but that is not good enough for the NYPD…they want to make arrests. They are also using Critical Mass as an excuse to be able to make arrests at all demonstrations in NYC.

2) If Critical Mass was so reckless and jeopardize public safety why were they allowed to go on for ten years with the police going on every ride and often allowing the bikes to block traffic?

3) The goal of Critical Mass is not to block traffic for the sake of tying up the city and preventing emergency vehicles from saving lives. Rather it is to stop traffic so the ride can stay together…which is almost always in MOTION. Drivers are inconvenienced for about 10 minutes at a time. Maybe for two whole lights to change.

4) A bicycle has never killed a pedestrian…cars kill bicyclists everyday on the street and the police respond with NO INVESTIGATION…rather they blame the victim.

5) A group of 500 bicycles can move out of the way much quicker then a traffic jam of cars thus allowing emergency vehicles to pass. This has been witnessed on several critical masses when the police use our tax resources to make ambulances drive through a crowd of bikers and then the truck pulls over at Starbucks. Why does a fire engine always appear right when critical mass starts? Because the police fake the emergency.

6) Permits are never issued on time to political functions. It is always a struggle and always meet with red tape often leading to the use of lawyers to fight the battle which generally exceeds the time of permit. Often the parks department or other civic agencies assist the police in blocking permits for political functions and come up with flimsy excuses like…”we don’t want to damage the grass or we are planting flowers that day.”

7) The ride wasn’t taken over by any new forces hellbent on anarchy and destruction. Yes, the ridership may have pushed the envelope by going on motor ways like the FDR, but always with NYPD supervision who did nothing.

8) The ride only became targeted by the police during the RNC, when they had written instructions to shut down all marches, protests and bike rides. Meanwhile they have been settling many of these RNC cases with buy outs proving the falseness of the arrests in the first place and costing the city hundreds of dollars.

9) The NYPD wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payer money on law enforcement for a BIKE RIDE. Multiple helicopters which have been used to monitor people making out on rooftops, video surveillance and especially on man power and equipment that could better be serving the community fighting legitimate crime.

10) If Ray Kelly is so concerned about public safety, he wouldn’t have such short sighted goals like stopping critical mass…the whole city would be working harder to encourage bike riding for less cars in the street, less oil consumption, cleaner air, healthier people and a cleaner environment. ——————————————————“Let a thousand protests bloom”

Errol Louis, of the Daily News sat in for Brian Lehrer and had a talk about recent news events…on NPR. He spoke with Diane Cardwell…city hall bureau chief for the NY Times and Bob Hardt, executive producer and political director at NY1.

The Police Department wants to require parade permits for bicyclists traveling in groups of 20 or more, and any bicyclists or walkers who take to the streets in groups of two or more and disobey traffic laws for things like parades, races or protests, according to a public notice filed with the city.

The department also wants to require a parade permit for groups of 35 or more protesters who restrict themselves to the sidewalk, officially clarifying a regulation that court rulings described as too vague, according to a police spokesman.

Taken together, the three new rules â€” which the department will discuss at a public hearing on Aug. 23, at 6 p.m. at police headquarters â€” would redefine the type of protest and the number of protesters allowed to demonstrate in New York City without first applying for approval from the Police Department.

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the new rules, if adopted, would â€œthreaten to substantially restrict protests.â€

Other critics of the department have questioned whether the police are authorized to make such changes without approval from the City Council, but Paul J. Browne, the Police Departmentâ€™s chief spokesman, said the police commissioner had the authority under the City Charter to amend regulations concerning public safety.

Mr. Browne said that after recent court rulings found the departmentâ€™s parade regulations too vague, the department moved to clarify them with these amendments. As a practical matter, he said, the department always believed it had the authority to make arrests under the existing regulations and often did.

â€œA permit effectively allows activities that would otherwise be illegal, such as disregarding traffic signals or blocking pedestrian traffic, to go forward with the police making accommodations such as the rerouting of pedestrian or vehicular traffic,â€ Mr. Browne said. â€œNothing in the amendments changes the penalties.â€

In its notice, the department said the rules were necessary for public safety. â€œThese amendments are intended to clarify the circumstances under which groups using city streets or sidewalks for purposes of assembly are required to obtain a permit,â€ the notice said.

â€œBy clarifying the type of activity that constitutes a parade and is thus required to obtain a permit,â€ the notice said, â€œthese rules are designed to protect the health and safety of participants in group events on the public streets and sidewalks and members of the public who find themselves in the vicinity of these events.â€

Advocates for bicyclists and others said the two new rules for bicyclists appeared to stem from the departmentâ€™s and the cityâ€™s continuing dispute with bicyclists over monthly Critical Mass rides around Manhattan. The rides are held on the last Friday evening of each month to advocate nonpolluting forms of transportation.

In the case of requiring two or more bicyclists or walkers to get a permit, the department is simply trying to prevent participants in public protests like Critical Mass from blocking traffic. Under the changed rules, the police would control traffic, as they do in customary parades. On Feb. 14, a judge suggested that the city consider changing its rules for what constitutes a parade or procession, a lawyer for the group, Norman Siegel, said yesterday. That case is still pending, Mr. Siegel said.

Mr. Siegel questioned whether the department had the authority to change the definitions of when a parade permit is needed.

â€œMy instinctive reaction is he cannot do this, it has to go to the City Council,â€ Mr. Siegel said, referring to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.

Mr. Browne said the commissionerâ€™s powers were clear. Notably, during the Republican National Convention in 2004, the police spontaneously allowed some protests to go ahead, on sidewalks or in the streets, even without march permits.

Mr. Siegel said that even if the police had the authority to change the rules, â€œitâ€™s antithetical to the principles and values of the right to protest that New York is associated with. This is simply unacceptable.â€

Some officials, including Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr., said the police seemed to be within guidelines in amending the rules, which he said were considered part of internal rules the department can change, rather than administrative codes written by lawmakers.

In the court case, the city is claiming that bicyclists who ride together need a permit, while defendants say they encourage riders to ride together in small groups for safety, â€œuntil the city creates a safe bicycling infrastructure,â€ said Bill DiPaola, the director of Timeâ€™s Up, a nonprofit environmental group in the city.

In a previous case, Judge William H. Pauley III of Federal District Court in Manhattan ruled that bicyclists did not need a permit to ride in groups, said Mr. DiPaola, whose group provides legal support for Critical Mass participants.———————————————–

I hate to flatter myself and think this is about just the bikers…but I think it is an accurate assessment in what has prompted this behavior and again it is really sad. Civilians are being killed in Lebanon in response to military actions taken by Hezbollah, thus further destabilizing an already unstable Middle East. Bush pulls a Veto of important scientific research that could save thousands of lives in order to protect human life and we are worried about how many people march in the streets in NYC??? Repeat after me…P-O-L-I-C-E S-T-A-T-E.

and about this part from the article…Mr. Browne said the commissionerâ€™s powers were clear. Notably, during the Republican National Convention in 2004, the police spontaneously allowed some protests to go ahead, on sidewalks or in the streets, even without march permits.

ALLOWED PROTESTS TO GO AHEAD???? uhhh, nothing was allowed…every demonstration I went to during the RNC and I went to pretty much all of them was meet with serious resistance from the NYPD…have we all forgotten so soon…the detaining on the sidewalk, the arrests, 48 hours in a garbage dump toxic bus depot, breaking up gatherings with a moped goon squad that ran us over with mopeds, random searches…yes they really allowed us a lot. How nice of them.

Somehow the NYPD keeps forgetting this silly little thing we have called THE CONSTITUTION…that GUARANTEES our rights of FREE ASSEMBLY. WE SHALL HAVE TO REMIND THEM.

Can you imagine asking for APPROVAL from the police department to exercise your constitutional rights????? Excuse me officer 35 of my friends would like to go for a walk…is that ok with you? No? Oh I have to file for a permit? Ok I did that? Oh you took 2 weeks to respond to me and now its too late? Damn, oh well better luck next time? “F that!”

If you believe in Freedom as an American please come to this public hearing, Aug. 23, at 6 p.m. at police headquarters.

There will be a press conference on this new proposed ruling at the Time’s Up Space today at 10:30am, 49 East Houston St.

I feel sick.

Once we have all been embedded with electronic monitoring devises none of this will mater. The police can just arrest through blue tooth when we even think about protesting. Can’t wait.

this is number 5647478 signing off, awaiting reprogramming and permission from the NYPD.

Mike, Hi, I read your blog occasionally to keep up on bicycle events in NYC. I recall reading on the blog a few days ago about the cops cracking down in central park and the thing that caught my attention was they were going to use radar guns. Well tonight (7/17/06) on my way home from work I was crossing the Williamsburg Bridge and when I get off the bridge in Brooklyn an unmarked cop car was sitting there. Sure enough a block later he pulls me over. He goes through this whole long thing. The jist of it is he claims I was doing 33mph down the bridge which is rated 30mph. I highly doubt I was going over 20mph. I use to ride with a speedometer and I never broke 30mph. I ride a mountain bike with street tires which are pretty wide but light tread…. Anyways I didn’t think he was going to ticket me for the claimed 3mph over. He randomly asks if I am aware of the laws regarding riding on the sidewalk which I wasn’t doing and he never accused me of doing. He then went on to ask if I had a bell and lights even though it wasn’t dark yet and lights weren’t needed but I showed I had them anyways. They said they had some tool to test the blinking speed of the lights and they were going to test but then decided not to. They mentioned my treads were almost warn out. They also took my ID and recorded info off of it and asked me generic questions like how long had I been riding and how often do I ride. It seems to me they pull over bikers claiming they are speeding even though they have no plans for ticketing for it even if it were true (who is going to ticket for 3mph over?) Then what they want to write you tickets for is lack of bell and lights.

Just wanted to give you a heads up. What interests me is if a lot of people are getting caught in the same situation. Getting accused of doing speeds they could never dream of doing then having their bike inspected. It seems if this is happening to everyone then we could probably file complaints against the city for harrassment. I have never heard of people getting pulled over for speeding and even getting a ticket for it then having their car fully inspected inside and out….—————————————————